Friday, August 25, 2006

Arrogant Judges

I detest arrogance of any kind. I believe that arrogance is one of the most contemptable of all human vices. That is why I detest most judges in this country. They are arrogant. They are openly contemptuous of our rights and freedoms. They are on a reckless Satanic rampage. I remember clearly (but not fondly) my day in court several years ago, when I tried to seek intervention by the District Court to prevent the building and starting up of a morally suspect business called "Sweet Treats Creamery". Now I won't elborate too much on what moral depravities were likely to occur in this store, except to say that the "goings on" in stores that have the word "creamery" in their name are likely to be too horrible and depraved to repeat here!! Stores like this should never have been permitted to operate in a family town. Unfortunately, due to the arrogance of the district court judge, my request for court intervention to prevent this depraved business from starting up failed, and, as a result, I can no longer drive directly to church along the primary road because this business happens to be located on the primary road. Instead I have to take a long and drawn out detour that takes me all the way around town so that I don't have to pass by this store. This detour is needed to ensure that I am NEVER within 10 miles of this store! I feel that by always keeping this safe distance away from the store, I am sufficiently protected from ever seeing or hearing any of the discusting, wicked, depraved acts that are likely to be occuring therein!

My day in court to try to prevent this store from going into business was not one that I remember fondly. The judge arrogantly stated that my contention was groundless and had no legal merit. "How Dare You!!," I responded. I then started to quote bible verses in the hope that if the judge was a good Christian man, he would see the error of his ways and repent before me that minute! Sadly, this evil arrogant man rejected my arguments further by ordering me to stop quoting the bible. He said that "his courtroom is no place for bible readings." The court is no place for bible readings?? What horrible evil arrogance! What has happened to our judicial system? Of all places the courts should be among the most necessary places for bible readings, as our laws should be based on the moral standards set forth in the bible. Sadly this arrogant judge refused to be taught the error of his ways, and he had the audacity to cite me for contempt! As a result I had to pay a 100 doller fine! I was outraged beyong belief! I hope that all of you reading this share my outrage.

4. You believe only heterosexual Christian males should be allowed to speak their minds. Okay, you're at least a little more liberal there. For Hitler, he didn't let anyone speak out. But still, you're silencing more than half of the fucking world.

5. "I've been accused of being evil, crazy, ignorant; and this is okay, for people who disagree with me are usually corrupted by the Devil." Wait, so everything you say is right, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong? Let me guess, everyone that disagrees with you should be put into gas chambers, too?

6. Oh nevermind, I'm sorry about that last comment. Rather than kill people, you'd prefer to torture them until they're almost dead in order to "chase the devil from their bodies," right?

7. You say you absolutely agree with everything Bush does. You "pledge your unwavering allegiance to him." I forget, but wasn't our freedom of speech designed so we could speak out against the President? Would you prefer this a dictatorship? After all, you'll do whatever he says, no matter what he says, right?

8. Sorry, I forgot. That's not right. You condone the use of drugs, or at least mushrooms. But he hasn't attempted to make them legal! YOU'RE CONDONING SOMETHING BUSH DOESN'T!?!?!? YOU'RE TREASONOUS!!!!!! Hypocritical much?

Well I'll check back to see what type of rebuttal you put forth. I look forward to your accusations of me being "corrupted by the devil."

Knowing Parnell, he thinks that eating ice cream is sinful because its sweet and gives people pleasure. Or, more likely, he thinks it's a brothel in disguise due to the sexual connotation of the word "creamery." Case in point:

"Now I won't elborate too much on what moral depravities were likely to occur in this store, except to say that the "goings on" in stores that have the word "creamery" in their name are likely to be too horrible and depraved to repeat here!!"

Either way, the logic behind his argument is fatally flawed, and if I'd been the district judge I would have thrown it out and cited him for contempt of court also.

ledvin -- i think you mistake the fact that all nonChristians are going to burn in hell with us advocating killing people. that has never been advocated on this site (although i'll admit the good doctor does believe in the death penalty, while i do not). even torture, which both the good doctor and i wholeheartedly support, should not be given out unless a crime is committed. so if you are a homosexual but don't go around in public holding hands with your bf, then you would be free to condemn yourself to hell. this is not to say, of course, that all nonChristians shouldn't be monitored, since they are the most likely to commit crimes.

anyway, it is your lucky day, for i definitiely think your are going to rot in hell for an eternity, because you have, in fact, been corrupted by Satan. this is obvious in the way you've confused the words of this site. besides the above, your point 5 blatantly ignores the plain language of what i said -- people who disagree with me are USUALLY corrupted by the devil. this would suggest that everything i say is not correct, only usually correct. another example: George Bush. the good doctor does, in fact, believe everything our President says, but i've posted about the possibility of his being the Antichrist.

anyway, the Devil has blinded you to the true meaning of our words so that you will be drawn closer to him.

led head -- you are worse than ledivin about twisting what we say to fit your immoral world view. neither the good doctor nor i are arrogant. we are humble people. you mistake the fact that we believe the bible is the word of god with arrogance. that says nothing about our self image, though.

and again in your fatally flawed logic, the fact that we believe something your don't makes us illogical, when it has nothing to do with logic really. a lack of logic would be something like, hey, you like cats, therefore you like dogs. that is totally unlike believing places of pleasure are evil (or good, for that matter). such beliefs exist outside the realm of logic. not that i blame you since the Devil a la scientists have attempted to twist everything into games of logic and illogic, when we should focus on good and evil, right and wrong, and faith and the lack thereof.

1st, Federal is not supposed to support Relight, because state and Religion is 2 seperate entities, not 1. It was made that way in the constitution, you should look it up, so you don't sound like a jackass next time you try to go to court and make a fool of yourself. You must be a dumbass to even thing church and state get along or suppose to get along.

By the way, I am a Christian myself, so do not BS me with well, your not a religious person.

Also do you notice you are the only one with that problem? Sounds like you need a shrink, bad.

thetruth(or lack of) -- you are a religious person in the same way Satanists consider themselves religious. in any event your analysis is proof of the severe corruption with which the Devil has burdened society. There is no such thing as the separation of church and state. that was posited by Jefferson, but it exists nowhere in the Consitution. what you are referring to is a person's freedom to practice their religion, which is, unfortunately, located in the Constitution. however, just because a person is free to be heathen all they wish does not mean the constitution prevents the state from celebrating and recognizing the one true God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"This portion of the First Amendment protects freedom of religion. It consists of two parts: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from creating an official or established church, preferring one religion over another, or benefiting believers instead of nonbelievers. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from interfering with the expression of religious beliefs. Sometimes these two clauses conflict, and it is difficult for the government to avoid an establishment of religion while at the same time protecting its free exercise.

Religious Liberty in Early America. In colonial America, established churches were the norm. Although many colonists had come to America to escape persecution from the established Church of England, they did not hesitate to create their own government-backed churches in the New World. The Puritan or Congregational Church became the official religion in the New England colonies, and the Church of England or Anglican Church was established in the southern colonies. The government compelled citizens of all faiths to support the established church through taxes. In addition, the established church punished sins as crimes. Colonists were forced to go to church on Sundays and could be whipped for failing to know religious doctrines.

In New England, Quakers—or the Society of Friends—were executed for their faith, and in southern colonies Baptists were required to be licensed in order to preach. Four colonies—Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island—did not create established churches. Other colonies, such as Maryland, practiced “toleration” for differing beliefs, but they did not protect the full civil rights of all faiths. As George Washington wrote to a Jewish synagogue in 1790, toleration implied the unacceptable premise that “it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their natural rights.”

After the Revolutionary War, more Americans clamored for freedom of religion. In 1786, Virginia passed a law to protect religious liberty—the most extensive at that time. Drafted by Thomas Jefferson, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom proclaimed that “all men shall be free to profess...their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.” No longer could Virginians be denied the right to vote or hold public office because of their religious beliefs.

This same principle would be included in the U.S. Constitution in 1787. Article VI forbade religious tests for federal offices, one of the few protections of individual liberties specified in the original Constitution. Nonetheless, several states believed that additional protections for religious liberty were needed, and they advocated such amendments during their ratification of the Constitution. James Madison drew on these proposals when he introduced his draft of the Bill of Rights after the First Congress convened in 1789.

The Establishment Clause. The first part of the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of religion is known as the Establishment Clause. It declares that Congress shall make no law “respecting an establishment of religion.” Americans continue to disagree about what constitutes an establishment of religion. Accommodationists believe that the government must make allowances for the significant role that religion plays in American life. Separationists argue that the Constitution prohibits any mingling of church and state.

Baptists played a critical role in the early development of the separation of church and state in America. After Thomas Jefferson was elected president, the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut wrote him a letter protesting the fact that in their state “religion is considered as the first object of legislation.” Jefferson replied in 1802 that the First Amendment prohibited the U.S. Congress from taking such action, “thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

The Supreme Court quoted Jefferson’s metaphor in Everson v. Board of Education(1947). In that case, the Court for the first time incorporated the Establishment Clause to apply to the states—opening the door to a plethora of church-state cases. The Court outlined the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause as follows:

Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force...a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will, or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

Although the Supreme Court in Eversoncited Jefferson’s phrase of “a wall of separation between church and state,” those words do not actually appear in the First Amendment. However, neither does the Constitution refer to the terms “God,” “Creator,” or “Divine Providence,” unlike the Declaration of Independence. In addition to Everson, the Supreme Court has used a variety of legal tests regarding Establishment Clause issues. Chief Justice William Rehnquist has long objected to the “wall of separation” doctrine, and the Rehnquist Court has generally taken a more accommodationist view of church-state issues.

Religion and Education.By far most Establishment Clause cases are about religion in the schools. Before taxes supported general public education, schools were largely run by churches. Many Americans became accustomed to sectarian values being part of the local curriculum—often to the disadvantage of religious minorities. But because public schools today are agents of the state, religious activity in them raises Establishment Clauses issues. So does public aid to private religious schools.

Vouchers. One form of government aid to religious schools is through vouchers, which allow parents to pay tuition at private schools using public funds. Supporters of vouchers charge that the public schools are failing low-income, minority students, and that vouchers are one way to improve student performance by increasing competition for tax dollars spent on education. Voucher advocates maintain that just as students may use government funds to attend religious colleges, parents should also have the choice of using tax dollars for tuition at private schools. Critics of vouchers believe that government funding of parochial schools violates the Establishment Clause, because such programs would directly fund religious instruction—a more crucial component of primary and secondary education at parochial schools than at religious colleges. Furthermore, critics charge, such programs would eviscerate the public schools, which must serve all students regardless of income or learning disabilities

In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the Supreme Court ruled that a voucher system established in Cleveland, Ohio for poor children in failing schools did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court held that a voucher program is constitutional if it is “neutral with respect to religion and provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens,” who then select religious schools out of a “genuine and independent private choice.” The dissenting justices argued that using tax dollars to pay for religious indoctrination could never be “neutral” regarding religion.

Evolution. State laws governing how evolution is taught in the public schools also raises Establishment Clause questions. Some Americans believe the scientific theory of evolution conflicts with the biblical version of creation. In 1925, legendary lawyer Clarence Darrow unsuccessfully defended John Scopes against a charge of violating Tennessee law by teaching evolution. The state supreme court overturned Scopes’s conviction, and the U.S. Supreme Court never ruled in his case. For the first time, the Supreme Court struck down a state law banning the teaching of evolution in Epperson v. Arkansas(1968). The Court also ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard(1987) that a Louisiana law mandating the teaching of biblical “creation science” along with the theory of evolution violated the Establishment Clause.

Equal Access. In 1984, Congress passed the Equal Access Act. It required that public high schools receiving government funds allow student groups to meet, regardless of their religious or political content—if the school allowed noncurricular clubs in general. The Supreme Court held that this law did not violate the Establishment Clause in Westside Community Schools v. Mergens(1990). Wrote Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “There is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.”

The Supreme Court extended this rationale regarding freedom of speech for religious groups in Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993). In that case, the Court upheld the right of adult religious groups to use school facilities after hours, if other nonschool groups are allowed to meet. And in Good News Club v. Milford Central School(2001), the Court ruled that after-school religious groups involving young students must be allowed to meet on the same basis as nonreligious groups.

School Prayer. Perhaps the most controversial issue involving the Establishment Clause is prayer in the public schools. The Supreme Court ruled in Engel v. Vitale(1962) that official prayer in public schools violated the Establishment Clause, even if students were not forced to participate in such prayers. In that case, the New York State Board of Regents had composed a prayer to begin each school day: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our Country.” But the Court held that “in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.”

The next year, in Abington School District v. Schempp(1963), the Supreme Court also overturned a Pennsylvania law mandating that each school day open with the Lord’s prayer and Bible readings. However, in Wallace v. Jaffree(1985), the Court indicated that an official “moment of silence” could pass constitutional muster if instituted with a secular purpose. Nonetheless, the Court struck down the Alabama law at issue in that case because its legislative history demonstrated that the state “intended to characterize prayer as a favored practice.”

The Supreme Court also ruled in Lee v. Weisman(1992) that official prayers at graduation ceremonies in public schools were unconstitutional. Moreover, in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe(2000), the Court held that a high school’s policy allowing students to vote on speakers before football games, and encouraging invocations, was public rather than private speech. In such cases, said the Court, the religious nature of the speech violated the Establishment Clause.

The Supreme Court has never outlawed voluntary prayer by individual students. But the Court has prohibited the public schools from sponsoring religious activity. The Court has even held that the study of religion or the Bible can be included in public school instruction, as long as it is carried out in a secular manner. Nonetheless, many Americans support a constitutional amendment that would allow official prayer in the public schools.

Religion in the Public Square. Besides education, the Establishment Clause also affects the role of religion in public life. In general, the Supreme Court has been more willing to allow religious expression in public settings when the impressionable nature of schoolchildren is not involved. Thus, the Court ruled in Marsh v. Chambers(1983) that prayers to open daily legislative sessions, even with government-funded chaplains, are constitutional. Noting the historical roots of such opening prayers, the Court argued that adult legislators were not subject to peer pressure or religious indoctrination.

State-sponsored holiday displays also raise Establishment Clause issues. During the winter, many local governments erect decorations celebrating Christmas, a Christian holiday, and Hanukkah, a Jewish holiday. The Supreme Court upheld such displays in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), as long as they included secular symbols of the season as well as religious ones. This “two reindeer rule,” as critics described it, led many municipalities to add Santa Claus and his sleigh to their holiday decorations. However, private groups have the right to place religious displays on public property, on a nondiscriminatory basis with other groups. In Capitol Square Review v. Pinette(1995), the Supreme Court allowed the Ku Klux Klan to display a cross on a public square near the state capitol of Ohio.

When Government Aids Religion. Another issue is at what point government regulations that benefit religion violate the Establishment Clause. Regarding tax exemption of religious property and contributions, the Supreme Court ruled in Walz v. Tax Commission(1970) that such exemptions were permissible because other nonreligious charitable and educational organizations also were tax exempt. The Supreme Court also upheld Sunday closing laws, or “blue laws,” in McGowan v. Maryland(1961) because they served a secular purpose by establishing a uniform day of rest.

The Free Exercise Clause. The second part of the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of religion is known as the Free Exercise Clause. It prevents Congress from “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. The Establishment Clause limits government policies that help religion, whereas the Free Exercise Clause restricts government actions that hurt religion. In general, a person has an absolute right to freedom of religious belief; however, the government can regulate the actions a person takes to express those beliefs. Today, most Free Exercise cases do not involve laws that directly discriminate against a specific denomination, but rather general laws that have a negative impact upon a particular religious group.

Polygamy. The Supreme Court dealt with the Free Exercise Clause for the first time in Reynolds v. United States(1879). Federal law prohibited polygamy in the territory of Utah, but Reynolds claimed the law interfered with his right to exercise his Mormon faith. The Court upheld Reynolds’s conviction, ruling that the Free Exercise Clause did not apply to acts that were “violations of social duties or subversive of good order.” Some sects of Mormons still practice polygamy or “plural marriage.”

Solicitation. The Court incorporated the Free Exercise Clause to apply to the states in Cantwell v. Connecticut(1940). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Free Exercise Clause “embraces two concepts—freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.” Still, the Court struck down a Connecticut law that mandated licenses for religious solicitors. A key tenet of Cantwell’s faith as a Jehovah’s Witness was zealous proselytizing. Jehovah’s Witnesses were so active in civil liberties cases that from 1938 to 1946, their faith was the subject of twenty-three Supreme Court decisions.

After World War II, the flag salute changed from head salute followed by outstretched arm to hand over heart.

Saluting the Flag. Jehovah’s Witnesses also believed that pledging allegiance to the flag was a form of idolatry forbidden by the Ten Commandments. The U.S. flag salute during the 1930s involved an extended arm movement similar to the Nazi gesture of “Heil Hitler,” as Jehovah’s Witnesses pointed out. Many German Witnesses were executed by the Nazis for their beliefs, such as refusing to give the Hitler salute. Nonetheless, school districts in numerous American communities passed regulations that permanently suspended any students who failed to salute the flag, including Jehovah’s Witness children. In Minersville School District v. Gobitis(1940), the Supreme Court upheld such flag-salute laws against the free exercise claims of Jehovah’s Witnesses, ruling that religious liberty must give way to political authority.

But several justices publicly changed their minds about the decision, particularly after it precipitated the worst religious violence in the United States in decades. In 1940 alone, more than 1,500 Witnesses were assaulted in 335 different attacks—including a castration in Nebraska. Only three years after Gobitis,while America was fighting World War II, the Supreme Court reversed itself in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943). That case also involved Jehovah’s Witness schoolchildren.

Justice Robert H. Jackson’s majority opinion in Barnettemade clear that the compulsory flag salute laws violated not only free exercise of religion but also free speech: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Justice Jackson also emphasized that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect the rights of unpopular minorities:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

A Compelling Interest. For many years, the Supreme Court ruled on free exercise claims using a particular legal test. First, the Court would decide if the religious beliefs at issue were sincere, although they did not need to be factually correct. “Men may believe what they cannot prove,” said the Court in United States v. Ballard(1944). Next, the Court would normally require the government to show a “compelling interest”—a very high legal standard—for keeping a policy that burdened a religious practice.

Using this test, the Court struck down a variety of laws as unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause. In two cases involving Seventh-Day Adventists, the Supreme Court held that people who quit jobs that conflict with their religious beliefs are entitled to unemployment benefits. And in Wisconsin v. Yoder(1972), the Court ruled that the Amish did not have to comply with a compulsory school attendance law beyond the eighth grade. However, the Supreme Court did require the Amish to pay social security taxes, despite their belief in self-sufficiency, in United States v. Lee(1982). The Court also ruled in Bob Jones University v. United States(1983) that private religious schools may be denied tax-exempt status if they discriminate based on race. In Goldman v. Weinberger(1986), the Court upheld military rules prohibiting nonregulation headgear, despite a Jewish officer’s request to wear a yarmulke on duty.

The Supreme Court significantly modified its “compelling interest” test for free exercise cases in Employment Division v. Smith (1990). In that case, Al Smith, a member of the Klamath tribe, was fired from his job as a substance abuse counselor for using peyote, a hallucinogenic cactus, as part of a religious ceremony. Smith argued that his taking peyote during a Native American ritual was no different than a Catholic alcoholism counselor receiving wine at communion. Smith was denied unemployment benefits because Oregon law prohibited the use of peyote. The Supreme Court ruled in Smiththat when a criminal law was at issue, the government did not have to prove a compelling interest, unless the law specifically targeted certain religious groups.

A wide variety of religious organizations have criticized the Smithdecision for unfairly penalizing minority religions. Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993 to reinstate the compelling interest test in all free exercise cases. However, the Supreme Court declared RFRA unconstitutional in 1997, saying that Congress had exceeded its authority."

ryven -- nice try, but that amendment applies to Congress, i.e. the federal government. The courts have used the 14th amendment due process clause to incorporate some of the Bill of Rights, all of which are only applicable to the federal gov., such that they apply to the states, but this is how they've come to be known as activist and evil. The 14th amendment says nothing about the bill of rights or fundamental rights; yet activist judges aligned with Satan have illegally and immorally applied them to the States. This goes against the reasoning of the Constitution -- the Founders sought to protect localities from a tyrannical federal government. they were much less concerned about the individual states affecting such rights because at the local level democracy, they thought, would work to the will of the people. and if you've read the case law on cases regarding the Establishment clause, current supreme court thinking is shifting back toward the light of God. if Ginsburg and Kennedy and Stevens retire and we get good Christian judges you can be sure there will be bible readings in school and in courts. and i would also like to point out that the reasonsing the supreme court has used to incorporate Establishment clause and the other Bill of Rights is the very same reasoning they use to protect abortion. and then i would further like to point out that the Founders, when they wrote the Bill of Rights, were concerned with sectarianism, not religion per se. it was given that christianity and the bible were fact; so religion within the meaning of the constitution meant sect. Congress shall make no law establishing a sect of religion. So the US couldn't call itself catholic. On the other hand, the founders intended the US to be a Christian nation.

Marionette, I followed your link to the article. While I respect your right to believe what you want, I personally doubt that God is so petty, jealous, and cruel that he would torture someone for time and all eternity just because they don't believe in him. Not the God I worship anyway. Sorry.

1.) The First Amendment applies to Congress. Congress makes laws. No law can be passed without going through Congress first, no matter how stubborn the members of the Judicial and Executive branch are. So the President or Judges can try and pass laws that cater to any one religion, but Congress is prohibited from letting them pass. A President can veto a law if he disagrees with it, but that veto can be overturned by a 2/3 majority vote by Congress. So essentially, Congress has the power to pass laws, and cannot pass laws respecting any one religion. The Executive Branch can disagree, throw a fit and veto all they want, but ultimately, Congress is the final arbiter.

2.) It is the Judicial branch's job to uphold laws already in action, and uphold what the Constitution says. The Constitution says that church and state are seperate, and that Congress can't make any laws that respect religion.

Thusly the Judicial branch must uphold that. They would be remiss in their duty otherwise. Being a judge means you're impartial, whether you're religious or not. They're not "activist" judges. An activist judge is a buzz-phrase made up by radical conservatives to describe judges who do their job. If anything, "activist" judges are judges who make unconstitutional rulings in line with religion to gain the favor of the current conservatives in office.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's.

Your argument might have held a bit of salt if it weren't so ridiculously biased toward religion. Religious docterine and government are seperate in this country, no matter how many loopholes you try and find.

ryven -- your blatant lack of knowledge of the constitutional and federalist system is just one reason why women should stick to raising children and taking care of their husband. At the federal level, you are more or less correct. But what about the state level. "Congress shall pass no law." what about the states? Nothing in the Constitution is there to prevent it. Only evil activist judges have decided to expand their power and the power of the federal government.

Nathaniel, have you ever heard of the New Testament? Doesn't it clearly state that Christ came into this world not to condemn it, but to save it? And isn't it stated somewhere that the prostitute shall make it to Heaven before the pharasee (read: yourself and Parnell)?

At any rate, I refuse to be controlled with threats of hellfire and brimstone. Sorry.

Led head- I didn't say I believe in what the article said, but I can't say otherwise. I like to study religion of all kinds. The study of hell is the most popular amoung christian scholars. If the God of Jesus Christ is really so merciless and cruel, then the only reason most Christian churches are filled on Sunday is because of fear of hell, not true love for God. That turns it into a chore.

There's another article about hell from a prestigious Christian University.

"The truth is, Jesus Christ never taught eternal torment for anyone God has created, no matter how sinful or misguided they may be. On the contrary, he taught that he is the savior of all people; and although there is punishment for the wicked, it is God's way of saving them from themselves through tough love, not eternal wrath and vengeance for sins committed during one mortal life. An endless hell makes an omnipotent Creator into a failure. An endless hell makes the Divine author of love and justice into a beast worse than the most depraved criminals this world has ever known. An endless hell is a blasphemy against God's character, and blasphemies have no place being taught as part of the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ."

"Little child, praise God you are here with Me in heaven!There are your mother and your brother burning in hell -- forever.Your mother sinned too much, and your brother left the faith.No, I can never forgive them and release them from their agony. Because I NEVER taught mercy."

Yeah, mkay. I really, seriously doubt what you're saying. The state government can't ignore the Constitution because it's not federal. A state just can't suddenly bring back slavery because they're not a branch of the Federal government.

Otherwise there wouldn't have been court cases like Brown V The Board of Education and Roe V Wade. If it was so "obvious" that states can make the laws that they see fit without having to abide by the statutes of the Constitution, there wouldn't have been so many court cases based around the many contrasts and conflicts.

Show me some sources to back up your claim, otherwise, I'm calling bullshit.

ARTICLE VI [1] All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. [2] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.[3] The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

ryven -- read the exact words of the first 10 amendments. CONGRESS shall make no law. nothing about the states. that is why slavery, segregation, etc. were allowed despite being banned by the federal government. after the civil war, the 14th amendment was enacted, giving people the right of due process and equal protection (this applies, according to the supreme court, only to race, and immigrants, and somewhat to women). since the enactment, the idea of what exactly, is meant by "due process" has evolved over time. the Supreme Court used to give it no weight. then they said it meant all of the bill of rights were "incorporated" to the states. then they said some were. then they said there are certain "fundamental rights" to be defined by judges that couldn't be touched by the states, that even though they exist nowhere in the constitution, like the right to be gay or to have an abortion, they were in the "penumbras." judges like scalia and thomas and pretty much all judges coming up today find this laughable, because it gives judges the ability to be activist. in any event, my point is, it wasn't until the 14th amendment that ANY of the rights guaranteed by the Const. applied to the states, and since that time its been very debated about how it actually was supposed to affect the states. it's original intention, however, was simply to outlaw slavery and discrimination based on race. and if you've followed how it applies to religion, you'd know that there's actually a raging debate within the judicial community; so while you think it impossible that we could ever have states officially support Christianinty, if you followed this stuff you'd know the law as it stands is held together by 5 of the 9 justices. that means one more new conservative supreme court justice, maybe two, and we will have prayer in schools.

if you're interested in this stuff, get a book on constitutional law and look up state action, the incorporation doctrine, substantive due process, and things like that. you'll see that i'm right.

If it's being radically debating withing the judicial committee, then it means that we're both wrong, doesn't it? Because until the people who went to law school and made the law their lives can agree, neither side can be right, because there's not a solid answer to base our arguments off of.

Did you miss this, Nathaniel? Did you not know where it comes from, or rather who said it?

So I guess you really don't know who said it, then? It was Jesus, Nathaniel/Parnell. Jesus knew that the state would always corrupt the church if the two mingled, and people today should have learned by now that the church will always try to meddle in affairs of state in such circumstances.

wrin -- who doesn't know that's what jesus said? it's the government's duty to protect its citizens. its citizens are put at risk by sin and immorality. therefore, the government should involve itself with religion, for it defines morality.

Believe it or not, Nathaniel, students are allowed to pray in school. They have that right. Teachers have the right to pray if they so desire. What they don't have the right to do is to try to coherce the students to pray if they don't want to.

The only people who seem to be upset about this arrangement are people who want to stuff the Bible--and their beliefs--down everybody's throats. People like you and Parnell, for instance.

Besides, shouldn't our youth pray because they want to, and not because they have to?

Here's some useful facts for you:75% of Americans are Christians. 75% of Americans in jail are christians. 10% of Americans are athiests. 0.2% of americans in jail are Athiests. which also leaves the non-mainstream religions to fill in that 9.8%

That means that there are 37500 times as many christians in jail as there are Aethiests, while there is only 7.5 times as many Aethiests in the United States.

I will let you, the readers, do with this piece of information what you will.

des -- nice twisting of facts to make a point. but it is really easy for people to claim to be Christian, but how does society know whether these people truly accept Jesus into their heart and believe the Bible is the Word of God? they don't. or, actually they do -- for if they were truly Christians they would not commit crimes. sure, they may have been raised calling themselves "Christian," but society did not impose mandatory bible lessons or enforce the Word of God, so they strayed from their upbringing.

In the absence of new posts I was reading through old ones, and I came across this:

http://tinyurl.com/fnyqm

In the comments you say that you rae only twelve Nathaniel, although given the date of the entry you would be thirteen now. Is that true? It seems that some of the subjects you post on are very adult for a thirteen year old, in fact I am almost certain you have said that children of that age should be shielded from some of the very subject matter than permeates your writings. In this case, are you an exception?

Well, I've been gone more than a month awaiting some new articles, but it seems you've run out of things to say. With all the stories on the news (the Amish school shooting, Steve Irwin's death, etc.), I thought you would be bursting with your written word. No longer inspired?

marionette -- no, you're right, there are many things to write about; however, i'm just waiting for something intelligent from someone else on this site to inspire me. it's been months since anyone of you commentors has said anything of worth.

In your "Everything Big is Evil" articles, you go on about how big animals are useless and have been since cars, etc. were invented and therefore we should spend no time protecting them. While I can see where you may be coming from with that point of view, isn't it somewhat contradicted by the story of Noah in the Bible? The Bible says that when God was flooding the world Noah gathered two of every animal, not just two of every useful animal. Doesn't that therefore send a message that all animals should be protected? Even disagreeing with the Animal Rights activists, what if there some way God intends for us to use these animals that we haven't thought of yet?

Also, I dont before remember there being many articles that were based on what any commentors said so much as based on current events. Are you looking to change the focus of the blog to responding to/rebutting commentors?

Jesus would be sad.You took the title of a bakery and made it into something sexual. That was obviously not it's intent, but you couldn't stop thinking about sex long enough to think of the word 'creamery' as, without a doubt, sexual. You pervert.Also you have a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution and the government. Ryven already kicked yer dumbass over this, but I'll state it for you again.

The separation of church and state is present in both State and Federal governments, by which the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land as stated in the Articles (obviously you've only read the Amendments, and not the Articles), and therefore affects the States as well. Congress shall make no law that steps into the jurisdiction of the States unless it is necessary and proper to do so in order to protect the Constitution and carry out it's other enumerated powers, as seen in the Elastic Clause. States and towns may make any law they see fit as long as it is moderately by the consent of the governed (if it isn't they won't vote for that person again) and if it is within the jurisdiction that our ole' Constitution grants it. Namely, no state law can contradict with the Constitution, and that includes the separation of Church and state.

If your going to close down that store, yer actually going to have to go into there and find a reason for it to be closed down. Or you can protest.

Led head- I apologize for assuming your gender, usually I'm good about that. Sorry.

Nathaniel- "Stimilus, response! Stimilus, response! Don't you ever think?!"This is from a comic that I like, and it applies well to you. What the hell makes you think the Crucible is pro-communist? If nothing else its one big allusion to the Red Scare, but that would simply be another representation of how everyone blamed everyone else of something stupid when no one even knew what the hell Communism was. Do you even know what it is? I doubt it.Basically everyone shares everything, except possessions that they worked hard to make for themselves. You can still make more money then someone else, but that relies on your own effort and you cannot make money off of someone elses labor. Essentially everyone is treated the same in all matters. Sounds kind of good except for the fact it's an utterly impossible concept in the face of human nature. It's all good except for one fatal flaw, no one is capable of making it happen.Plus... it disables progress.You are blindly afraid of the stupidist stuff, and you coveniently forget to respond to any points that kick your ass. You just touch on something else that you think you can win so that you can earn yourself more credibility. That only works around stupid people though, and no one is buying into you.Upholding the teachings of Christ is good, but taking the Bible too literally and not even awknowledging the possibility that some things are metaphors is the same as all those thirteen year old nimrods that buy into that Time Cube crap so they might get out of doing academic homework.

three headed grinch -- it's pro-communist because it's a thinly veiled criticism of McCarthyism, which was a very patriotic movement; and besides that it is also pro-witchcraft, pretending as though witches do not exist when, in fact, they do.

Nathaniel- Being a criticism of McCarthyism doesn't make it pro-Communist. A patriotic movement would be getting off of your ass and joining the army, or when everyone hung U.S. flags outside their houses post-September the Eleventh. Those are patriotic. Blaming innocent people of something you don't even have a clue of what it is about to make yourself popular is not patriotic. McCarthy accused people of Communism yet didn't even know what Communism was, and he was only doing it to promote his own fame (which turned to infamy as soon as people noticed he was a jackass). He ruined people's lives with false accusations. His list of "50 names of known Communists already in high government positions" was false, infact there wasn't even a list. It was a blank piece of paper, a prop.

The existence of witches is irrelevant, and that's because the Crucible doesn't hide existence of witches. It just has women who were stupid dumb broads who wanted to try something and weren't really witches. That doesn't disprove witches. Someone with too much free time would be able to deduce that it means that most people who claim to be witches would be incredibly silly or something like that. Modern practicioners of magic, such as neo-wiccans, don't even do anything for real except at social gatherings and don't even have any knowledge of the practice.

So the making of the Crucible to hide witches is a completely thoughtless comment. Besides most people don't even have to worry about witches. The real ones (at least to my experience) are very reclusive, and the targets they make are very selective. The normal person doesn't have to worry about a genuine and dangerous witch. Social people who claim to be witches might have some influence, but are generally not dangerous. Real witches do not broadcast their power, and are very hard to find. If you run into a bunch of 'witches' dancing around a pentacle waving wands and throwing red colored kool-aid over their shoulders, they aren't witches. They are high school students who have late curfews. If you meet a real witch, your most likely going to die and are completely alone except for the witch.You can't learn about witches from the Bible, and no I do not support witches. I just happen to know a bit about them because people I knew were killed by them.

Three-Headed Grinch: You obviously don't know as much about the craft as you think.

The word "witch" is actually an ancient term meaning "wise woman." Wicca, or Witchcraft if you will, is the religion they follow. They neither believe in nor worship the Christian Devil. They don't worship the Christian God either, but they do worship a God and a Goddess.

Wicca is a nature-based religion. In everything they do, a witch or wizard tries to remain in harmony with nature. It is actually a taboo in the Wiccan religion to use magic to kill or harm people, because according to their beliefs, whatever you send out to people will return to you threefold. However, if someone is doing something to harm them, or a loved one, it is perfectly acceptable to use magic to frustrate the evil doer. But as for casting spells of death or illness...no. Witches ordinarily don't do that.

So before you go around making blanket statements like "I just happen to know a bit about them because people I knew were killed by them," you may want to make certain you really know what you're talking about. Whoever--or whatever--killed these people probably wasn't a witch. If it were, they'ed suffer a fate 3 times worse, and they know it.

Led Head- Actually I already knew all of that, I just didn't know that other people would use Wicca and Witch interchangebly. I don't. And I don't pose to know a lot about the craft of Wicca, but I do know about 'witches,' or as I used the term to refer to practicers of black magic.

If the official translation of witch is wise woman, then I concede to that point only, I was basically using the term as it has become to be known. But as far as I was educated, 'witch' was a perversion of the word 'Wiccan.'Despite my lack of knowledge of the origin of those terms, I DID know what Wiccan's basically believed in. I wasn't calling Wiccan's evil, although too many neo-Wiccans deviate from traditional Wiccan practices for the sake of being popular, a fad if you will. I did know that they did not believe in the Christian God, and did know about their thing with natural balance and whatnot.For example, it is not allowed to influence other people without their permission. A lot of neo-Wiccan's like to run around with crystals pretending to cast love spells on other people, which is as stupid as it is incorrect.

"So before you go around making blanket statements like 'I just happen to know a bit about them because people I knew were killed by them,' you may want to make certain you really know what you're talking about."

I think that my earlier comments have now cleared up this statement. I wasn't calling Wiccan's evil or bad, and I used the term 'witch' to refer to practicioneers of black magic, automatically assuming that I wouldn't run into someone with the educational backround to know the link between 'Wiccan' and 'witch.' I did not mean to link the two. I meant to refer to people who use magic for bad purposes.

"Whoever--or whatever--killed these people probably wasn't a witch. If it were, they'ed suffer a fate 3 times worse, and they know it."

Afraid not. Because these kind of 'witches' do not belong to the European conceptions of magic users. Their fate is arguably bad, but arguably good by their side as well. I called them witches, you wouldn't call them witches. So I shall present you a term that might be more commonly known.Skinwalkers.

Granted, there are people who use and abuse the craft, just as there are Christians who use and abuse their faith. But I don't see "skinwalkers" as you call them, as being true witches, anymore than I see Nathaniel and Parnell as being true Christians: p

I wasn't trying to be mean, I just don't like seeing the good people within any given group tarred with the same brush as the bad people in the group.